California voters will see a November ballot with only two Democrats on the ballot, and no write-in space. On October 27, PPIC released a poll for the Senate race. The poll includes president and some of the statewide ballot measures as well. For the U.S. Senate race, the results are: Kamala Harris 42%; Loretta Sanchez 20%; won’t vote 18%; don’t know yet 20%.
By contrast, in the Presidential race, where five candidates are on the ballot and write-ins are permitted, only 1% of respondents say they won’t vote. The presidential results are: Hillary Clinton 54%; Donald Trump 28%; Gary Johnson 5%; Jill Stein 5%; someone else 2% (volunteered); 1% won’t vote; 4% undecided. It is unfortunate that the poll didn’t include Gloria La Riva, because her name is also on the ballot. See the results here. Thanks to Carla Marinucci for the link.
I am already one of those who left CA’s U.S. Senate race BLANK! A choice between TWO, pro-illegal alien democrats is no choice at all!
I also voted for “NONE OF THE ABOVE” in the Presidential race!
How about crossing out the names of both Donkey robot party HACKS ??? —
A possible felony — i.e. a *marked* ballot ???
Tommorrow Oct. 28th. There will be a big announcement in California by the Secretary of State. Many citizens who have been disenfranchised by the Presidential Primaries still “Feel the Bern” and want to vote for Bernie Sanders on the ballot. Bernie Sanders is the most beloved and popular politician in America. The chances are good that all 55 Bernie Sanders Electors will be approved by the CA Secretary of State. Once approved write in Bernard Sanders for Pres. Tulsi Gabbard for VP. This is an exciting development giving voters the opportunity to vote their choice for President. https://www.facebook.com/notes/tina-marie-deraco/all-the-answers-to-your-questions-about-ca-voting-and-writing-in-bernie-are-here/1408418315854822
I had no choice, but to leave the US Senate space blank. Because this is “Top Two” California and being a registered Green I have no candidate for whom to vote due to this illegal bullshit law that was passed in the middle of the night by Democrats and Republicans who got together and agreed that if third party candidates can not appear on the ballot for senate, house of representatives, treasurer, etc… Then no one will even know they exist and then who the hell will ever vote for them as President. We’ve used once in California once. I say sue, sue, sue again. Protest in mass at every state meeting where votes are to be held and demand fair, just, and equal opportunity to run for office here in the great state of California.
I very strongly believe that the winner of any race should have the support of 50% plus 1. It’s why I support the Louisiana system, or the Argentina PASO system because no one in the history of elections at any point has ever elected a party, they elect an individual. That requires supporters of people from 3rd on back to choose between who finish 1st or 2nd if no one got above 50%.
Sorry if that’s an unpopular opinion on this board, but it’s what I believe.
To follow on, I don’t understand how a person can be pro-IRV and yet upset at this system. The voters rejected your candidate because he or she didn’t get enough support, and now you’re voting in a runoff.
Even in countries with IRV like Ireland it’s not like everyone in IRV continues voting for other candidates. To use as an example the most recent Irish presidential election in 2011, the candidates 3rd on back picked up 565,697 votes. 136,544 of these people did not end up voting in the runoff between the final two candidates. That is a dropout rate of 24%, higher than the 18% “won’t vote” here.
Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris is the “Democratic machine candidate” given that she is endorsed by both Pres. Obama and Gov. Brown. If one could just not bring themselves to not vote in the Calif. Senate election, then a vote for Sanchez could be considered as a vote against the “machine.”
RJ, the California November election is not a runoff. A runoff is something that is only held if the election itself fails to elect someone. But the California June event is not an election. An “election” is something that is capable of “electing” someone. But California law does not permit anyone to be elected to congress, or to partisan state office, in June. Even if someone gets 100% of the June vote, he or she is not elected. This is because federal law, since 1872, has told the states they must hold their congressional elections in all districts in November of even years.
What California has is a popularity poll in June. Candidates who aren’t among the two most popular candidates in June are not permitted to run in the election itself. California has the most restricted ballot choices of any place in the democratic world. By law, only two candidates may run in the election itself. That is a terrible infringement on voting rights. Even in Washington, voters can cast a write-in for anyone they wish in November.
Beg to differ — an election is about making choices — preliminary or final —
which is why SCOTUS has been ruling on primary election stuff since the late 1920s — the Texas White Primary cases, etc.
As to the lack of write-ins in CA and all other States – — Again — note 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 — deny / abridge.
Richard,
The 1872 federal law is not applicable to state elections. Californians elected numerous officials at the June “event”. They even elect a statewide office holder at a June “event” in gubernatorial years.
Yes, Jim, but you fail to mention that the one race that California does elect in the primary is Superintendent of Public Instruction, which has been non-partisan for over 100 years.
There was a proposed constitutional amendment last year in the California legislature to provide that partisan state offices would be elected in June, but it was defeated.
I am amazingly upset to discover that I cannot even WRITE IN a candidate for the U S Senate. I WILL need to be more involved with politics … because somehow my governmental leaders managed to keep me unable to vote for A U.S. SENATOR,